The Effects of a Positive Psychology Intervention on the Self-Concept of Students with Learning Disabilities
by Stacey Short
B.Ed., McGill University, 1994 M.Ed., Framingham State College, 2002 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies
© Stacey Short, 2007 University of Victoria
All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in while or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author.
The Effects of a Positive Psychology Intervention on the Self-Concept of Students with Learning Disabilities
by Stacey Short
B.Ed., McGill University, 1994 M.Ed., Framingham State College, 2002
Supervisory Committee Dr. Brian Harvey, Supervisor
(Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies) Dr. John Anderson, Departmental Member
(Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies) Dr. Gina Harrison, Departmental Member
(Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies) Dr. Robert Anthony, Outside Member
Supervisory Committee Dr. Brian Harvey, Supervisor
(Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies) Dr. John Anderson, Departmental Member
(Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies) Dr. Gina Harrison, Departmental Member
(Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies) Dr. Robert Anthony, Outside Member
(Department of Curriculum and Instruction)
ABSTRACT
Identifying and developing strengths may serve as an intervention to improve self-concept. The power of positive psychology is the foundation for recent studies in strengths-development research. Positive psychology is based on the premise that, if people are taught to capitalize on their strengths and to be resilient and optimistic, they will lead happier, more productive lives. The purpose of this research was to measure the effects of a positive psychology intervention on students’ self-concept. Based on positive psychology principles, the intervention was designed to help students learn both about positive psychology and about their personal strengths. This intervention was designed to serve a population of children, ages 10 to 15 years old, in Victoria, Canada. A sample size of 26 students diagnosed with learning disabilities were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control group. The intervention group participated in a 3-week intervention course about positive psychology, and they completed the VIA (Values in Action Inventory of Strengths – Youth)( Park& Peterson, 2003) to identify their individual strengths. Before and after the intervention program, students were assessed using the Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ-1; Marsh, 1992). Using a pre and post test design, t-tests indicated there was no statistically significant difference between the groups gains. There was, however, a small effect for the intervention group in the self-concept domains of Math (d=0.30), Reading (d=0.22), and Total Academic Self-Concept (d=0.20) following the positive psychology intervention.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Supervisory Page ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Acknowledgements x
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Overview 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Research Question 3
Purpose of the Study 3
Hypothesis 3
Definition of Terms 4
Assumptions 5
Summary of Chapter One 5
Chapter Two: Literature Review 6
Overview 6
Review of Literature - Positive Psychology 6
A Brief History of Positive Psychology 6
Eudaimonia: Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) 7
Self-Actualization: Abraham Maslow (1908 - 1970) 8
Positive Psychology in the 21st century: Martin Seligman 9
Positive Psychology and Strengths 10
Values in Action Inventory (VIA) 11
Positive Psychology and Children 13
Self-Concept 15
The Development of Self-concept in Children 15
Self-Concept Interventions 17
Learning Disabilities 19
Learning Disabilities and Self-Concept 19
The Potential of Using Positive Psychology with Children who have Learning Disabilities
21
Limitations and Implications for Future Research 23
Summary of Chapter Two 25
Chapter Three: Methodology 27
Overview 27
Research Design 27
Sampling and Sampling Procedures 28
Instrumentation 29
Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ-1) 29
Ethics 30
Ethics Application to School District 61 (SD 61) 30
Ethics Application to School A 31
Overview of the Intervention 33
Data Analysis 35
Summary of Chapter Three 35
Chapter Four: Results 36
Overview 36
Preliminary Data Analyses 36
What was the composition of the sample? 36
Were the groups equivalent prior to the start of the intervention? 39
Primary Analysis 40
Hypothesis 43
Secondary Analyses 44
Was there a statistically significant difference in the self-concept scores of boys versus girls in intervention versus control group conditions?
44
Was there a statistically significant difference in how children in different grades/classes responded to the intervention?
45
Was there a difference in the number of children whose self-concept scores improved versus the number of children whose scores declined between pre and post test?
47
Was there a difference between the average pre-test scores for the research sample and the SDQ-1 norm sample?
47
Summary of Chapter Four 47
Chapter Five: Discussion 49
Summary of Research Findings 49
Integration of Findings with Past Literature 50
Implications of Findings 54
Theoretical Implications 54
Practical Implications 55
Limitations 55
Why was the hypothesis of the study not supported? 56
Future Directions 58
Summary of Chapter Five 61
References 62
Appendix A: Classification of 24 Signature Strengths 74
Appendix B: SDQ-1 Instrument 77
Appendix C: Parent Consent Letter 81
Appendix D: Overview of the Intervention - Script for UVic Ethics Approval 84
Appendix E: SDQ-1 Pre-Test Raw Scores 90
Appendix F: SDQ-1 Score Calculation and Summary Sheet 92
Appendix G: Comparison of SDQ-1 Scores of Study Sample (pre-test) versus SDQ-1 Norm Sample
94
Appendix H: Questionnaire Post-Study - Qualitative Feedback from Research Participants
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Overview of the Intervention 33
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and T-tests for Intervention and Control Group Sample Pre-Test Raw Scores on Eight Dimensions of Self-Concept as measured by the SDQ-1
40
Table 3: Comparison of Differences (Post test-Pre test) SDQ-1 Scores 41
Table 4: Distribution of Participants by Gender 45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Boxplots of the Difference of the Domain Self-concept Reading Scores by Group
42
Figure 2. Boxplots of the Difference of the Domain Math Reading Scores by Group
42
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of my thesis would not have been possible without the support of several people. First I would like to acknowledge my parents for their ever present support and encouragement. I would like to recognize my supervisor Dr. Brian Harvey and the members of my committee: Dr. John O. Anderson, Dr. Gina Harrison and Dr. Robert Anthony for their feedback and guidance. I have learned a great deal about educational research and myself during this thesis journey.
I would like to thank Tayyab Rashid and H’Sien Hayward for introducing me to Positive Psychology. I would like to thank Dr. Christopher Peterson and Dr. Nansook Park for allowing me to use the VIA-Youth for my research.
I would like to thank several individuals who each contributed, knowingly or not, to my success. I would like to thank Sherri Ko, the staff, teachers, parents and students of “School A” for their participation, without whom this thesis would never have been possible. I would like to thank my friends Ming Sze Goh and Jui-Chen Hsu for their statistical expertise and willingness to consult with me long-distance. I would like to thank Jill Zwicker whose thesis served as an excellent example and also for her willingness to consult with me. I would like to thank and credit Stacy Chappel and the GSS Executive for their friendship and support throughout my time at UVic. I am certain that I would not have had the same experience at UVic had I not been involved with the Graduate Students’ Society. Finally I acknowledge and appreciate the support given by Zoria Crilly, the EPLS departmental graduate secretary, who “knows all” and humbly serves as a contributor to many students success.
Chapter One: Introduction Overview
My research interest focuses on teaching positive psychology principles to children in order to improve their self-concept. I believe it is an area of learning,
education, and psychology that would benefit from future research. In the year 2000 the American Psychological Association (APA) began focusing on preventing some
problems (trends) that were tending to occur within children, including depression, schizophrenia, substance abuse, and school yard violence. This shift in thinking led to the beginning of a movement that concentrated on the positive potential of psychology. Students with learning disabilities are often characterized as having a low self-concept (the opinions that one holds about oneself). Applying positive psychology principles could enhance self-concept and promote resiliency. One assumption of positive psychology is that knowing one’s strengths and exercising them in one’s everyday life (school, work, and personal life) will lead to a more fulfilled life. Helping students identify their signature strengths will change their focus from their difficulties to their abilities. This change, because it will be accompanied with strategies, may result in a long term solution. A measure was created, entitled the Values in Action Inventory (VIA) that identifies culturally accepted/tested strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This measure has been recently adapted for children.
Presently there is an ongoing research project at the Positive Psychology center - University of Pennsylvania, where they are teaching resiliency skills to school children in order to study if they can prevent depression (Gillham et al., 2007). Programs, such as this one, could be modified and paired with work on signature strengths to benefit
children with learning disabilities. Interest in positive psychology continues to increase with the realization of the potential application to many different fields. (a) The
University of Pennsylvania, in September of 2005, began offering a Master of Applied Positive Psychology, (b) The Gallup Organization (USA), the oldest and biggest management consulting, polling and market research company, sponsors a yearly International Positive Psychology Summit.
The New York Times (Maxx, 2007) featured an article entitled “Happiness 101” that included a discussion about schools in the United States and Australia that are adopting curriculum based on Positive psychology. Most recently, the keynote address at the Canadian Psychological Association annual conference (June 2007) was on the topic of positive psychology and presented by Dr. Christopher Peterson. It is my belief, in the time I have spent working with children who have learning disabilities, that caring and believing in a child can make a difference. Many students with learning disabilities have low self-concept and they appear to focus on their disabilities instead of their abilities. The implementation of a program based on positive psychology may help these students change their focus to the positive. The introduction of a positive psychology intervention program may make students more aware of their strengths and may benefit them in the future. This research has practical application for parents, school psychologists,
counselors, teachers, and students. In a research study these questions could be investigated using the VIA and adapting current researched programs that encourage cognitive strategies in students. This may increase their self-concept thus increasing their resiliency. Martin Seligman is the leading researcher at the center of the Positive
researchers currently studying the use of positive psychology strategies with children who have learning disabilities. He answered, “I have not written about this, but
translating the interventions for LD is a good thing to do.” (Personal email). This was an encouraging statement for my research interests.
Statement of the Problem
Students with LD often have low self-concept and tend to focus on their weaknesses rather then their strengths (Brooks, 2002). In the study of LD, a gap in
knowledge exists concerning interventions to improve the self-concept of children as well as concerning the use of positive psychology as an intervention with children.
Research Question
Does a positive psychology intervention, focused on identifying character strengths, improve the self-concept of students with and without learning disabilities? Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this pre-test post-test experimental study is to examine the effectiveness of a positive psychology intervention on students’ self-concept.
Specifically, this study examines whether a positive psychology intervention (including the VIA – Inventory of Strengths) improves the self-concept of children, aged 10 – 15, with and without LD.
Hypothesis
The hypothesis of the present study is that using the VIA-Youth Inventory of Strengths and 3 class lectures about Positive Psychology will result in an increase from pre-test to post-test of elementary and middle school students self-concept scores on the Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ-1, Marsh,1992).
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are offered to ensure proper interpretation of the terminology used in the study:
1. Positive Psychology – “Positive psychology is the study of the conditions and processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions” (Gable & Haidt, 2005, p.103). As a goal, positive psychology attempts to understand positive emotions, positive strengths and virtues, and positive institutions (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
2. Learning Disability (LD) – “refer to a number of disorders which may affect the acquisition, organization, retention, understanding or use of verbal or nonverbal information. These disorders affect learning in individuals who otherwise demonstrate at least average abilities essential for thinking and/or reasoning. As such, learning disabilities are distinct from global intellectual deficiencies. Learning disabilities are due to genetic and/or neurobiological factors or injury that alters brain functioning in a manner which affects one or more processes related to learning. These disorders are not due primarily to hearing and/or vision problems, socio-economic factors, cultural or linguistic differences, lack of motivation or ineffective teaching, although these factors may further complicate the challenges faced by individuals with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities may co-exist with various conditions including attentional, behavioural and emotional disorders, sensory impairments or other medical conditions” (Learning Disability Association of Canada, 2003, ¶ 1&6). This definition has been adopted by the BC Ministry of Education.
3. Self-concept – Self-concept is the cognitive or thinking aspect of self (related to one's self-image). Generally it includes the beliefs, attitudes and opinions that one holds about oneself. Self-esteem is the affective or emotional aspect of self and generally refers to how we feel about or how we value ourselves (one's self-worth). Self-concept can also refer to the general idea we have of ourselves, and self-esteem can refer to particular measures about components of self-concept (Huitt, 2004). Often the two terms are used interchangeably. Harter (1999) defines self-concept as a term “reserved for evaluative judgments of attributes within discrete domains such as cognitive competence, social acceptance, physical appearance…” (p.5).
Assumptions
The following assumption was expected to be present in the study: Children who participated in the study will provide accurate information when completing the SDQ questionnaires.
Summary of Chapter One
This chapter introduced the notion that an intervention program based on positive psychology could increase students’ self-concept. The need to develop interventions to increase the self-concept of a student with LD was also outlined. In the next chapter, existing literature on positive psychology and self-concept is presented. Research on the self-concept of students with LD will also be reviewed. In chapter three, the research design, sampling, instrumentation, procedure, ethics, and timeline will be discussed in detail.
Chapter Two: Literature Review Overview
Low self-concept is a concern for students with LD (Brooks, 2002). The need to identify effective interventions to increase self-concept is documented in both educational psychology and special education literature. This chapter reviews previous studies
conducted on positive psychology, self-concept, and learning disabilities as well as the theory behind them. Prior to reviewing the studies, it is first necessary to provide some background information on the history of positive psychology. A review of positive psychology and strengths and their relation to self- concept and students with LD is also included. The development of self-concept in children as well as issues with self-reports are reviewed. Finally, studies involving positive psychology and their potential
application to children with LD are discussed.
Review of Literature A Brief History of Positive Psychology
Although the term positive psychology is relatively new, the study of the positive effects of psychology has existed for many years. In the early 1900’s, James wrote about “healthy mindedness” and domains of importance (Harter, 1999). In 1958 Allport was interested in positive human characteristics. In 1968 Maslow advocated for the study of healthy people as opposed to the study of sick people. In addition to the above mentioned theorists, Aristotle, Dewey, Rogers, Thorndike, Piaget, and Bandura are considered as other contributors to the theory behind the current positive psychology movement (Rashid, 2004). Positive psychology is defined as “the study of the conditions and
processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions” (Gable & Haidt, 2005, p. 103).
Positive psychology emerged as a term within the field of psychology in the last six years following being featured in the journal American Psychologist in the year 2000. Much of the credit for the positive psychology [r]evolution is attributed to Dr. Martin Seligman. Many critics have proposed that positive psychology is not a new concept and should not be attributed to Seligman. In journal articles and his books, Seligman clearly states that, among others, Aristotle, Maslow and Rogers all contributed theories to the current movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Seligman, 2002).
Eudaimonia: Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE)
Aristotle’s works have had a great influence on philosophy and psychology. His naturalistic perspective on human functioning and his analysis of psychological problems are still applicable today. Aristotle is credited with coining the term eudaimonia. It is often translated into common English as “happiness”, but Hughes (2001) states that Aristotle’s explanation is more associated with “achieving one’s full potential” [(X, 7, 1177a11)(p. 22)]. Hughes furthers his interpretation to state that Aristotle was referring to “living a worthwhile life” (p. 23). People are motivated by eudaimonia but for each person the exact result is not the same (e.g. eudaimonia means different things to
different people). Aristotle stated that living the fulfilled life would be a reward in itself. “A fulfilled life will indeed be enjoyable, and well regarded by good people; but its point consists in the living of it, and doing precisely because it is worthwhile” (Hughes, p.26). Aristotle stated that individuals who achieve eudaimonia do not need further pleasure as their life will contain pleasure (as cited in Hughes, 2001).
Self-Actualization: Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) mentioned Abraham Maslow as one of the early investigators who explored creativity and peak experiences. Maslow’s theories focused on the self, and unfortunately were originally neglected by psychologists. Similar to Aristotle, he revived the naturalistic/descriptive inquiry. Maslow’s background in abnormal psychology closely parallels Seligman’s early work in psychopathology. In 1943 Maslow published A Theory of Human Motivation which included his famous “hierarchy of needs”. Maslow posited that, when basic survival needs are met, other higher order needs evolve. He further stated that satisfaction of needs is essential for normal development and leads towards self-actualization (Maslow, 1970). Maximum psychological health and growth arise only from attempts to satisfy higher needs. Self-actualization is the pull on people to achieve their actual full potential. “What humans can be they must be. They must be true to their own nature. This need we may call self-actualization” (Maslow, 1987, p. 22).
Maslow’s hierarchical needs theory was criticized as it was difficult to test. Others, such as Seligman, have found in his theories a basis for their work today in positive psychology. Self-actualization is very relevant to the positive psychology movement (Snyder, Rand, & Sigmon, 2005).
The Good Life: Carl Rogers (1902 – 1987)
Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) discussed Carl Rogers as one of the theorists who, for his time, held enormous promise and offered a different, humanistic perspective. Rogers may be most famous for his practice guidelines for person-centred therapy. Although the guidelines were simple, they were practical, and they positively
influenced generations of therapists. Considering the individual, Rogers believed that continuing awareness of ones’ authentic desires is essential for healthy development and self-actualization. He theorized that the organism has a single motivating force, the drive to self-actualization. This orientation towards growth, self-actualization and fulfillment is similar to both Maslow and Aristotle’s theories, mentioned earlier. Rogers summarizes his feelings on the good life,
I believe it will have become evident why, for me, adjectives such as happy contented, blissful, enjoyable, do not seem quite appropriate to any general description of this process I have called the good life, even though the person in this process would experience each one of these feelings at appropriate times. But the adjectives which seem more generally fitting are adjectives such as enriching, exciting, rewarding, challenging, meaningful. This process of the good life is not, I am convinced, a life for the faint-hearted. It involves the courage to be. It means launching oneself fully into the stream of life. Yet the deeply exciting thing about human beings is that when the individual is inwardly free, he chooses as the good life the process of becoming (Rogers, 1961, p. 198-9).
Rogers has been criticized for his therapeutic goals of complete awareness and self direction as well as his client-centred therapy. The current positive psychology movement has built upon his ideas of the good life as an aim for the individual. Positive Psychology in the 21st century: Martin Seligman
Seligman’s early research in learned helplessness lead to work on explanatory style and depression. His involvement in researching psychopathology influenced his eventual transition to positive psychology (Maier, Peterson, & Schwartz, 2000). Many
psychologists would mark the beginning of the positive psychology movement, with the beginning of Martin Seligman's tenure as American Psychological Association (APA) president in 1998 and in the year 2000 with the special edition of the American
Psychologist devoted to positive psychology. Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) found that there are certain human strengths that act as buffers against mental illness (e.g. courage, future mindedness, optimism, interpersonal skill, faith, work ethic, hope,
honesty, perseverance, and the capacity for flow and insight). Psychologists have good reason to believe those techniques that build positive traits and positive subjective
experiences work, both in therapy, and perhaps more importantly, in prevention. Building optimism, for example, seems to prevent depression (Seligman, Schulman, DeRubeis, & Hollon, 1999).
The early theorists of the concepts involved in positive psychology, such as Aristotle, Maslow and Rogers, had a strong effect on the culture during their time. Unfortunately their research did not accrue an empirical base. “Future debate will determine whether this came about because Maslow and Rogers were ahead of their times, because these flaws were inherent in their original vision, or because of overly enthusiastic followers” (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000, p. 7).
Positive Psychology and Character Strengths
One of the assumptions of positive psychology is that identifying an individual’s strengths and exercising them regularly will lead to a happier and more meaningful life (Seligman, 2002). Seligman stated that strengths are special traits that meet additional criteria setting them apart from talents and more general personality traits and adding
moral worth to them. Researchers are studying how strengths naturally develop, how they are maintained, and how they can be nurtured to improve people's lives (Seligman, 2002).
Among these criteria, strengths are valued for their own sake, not simply for the consequences they produce. Strengths are traits that most parents wish for in their children and that are supported by cultural institutions. Peterson and Seligman (2004) reported that strengths are the building blocks of higher order qualities or virtues. People will be happier and live more meaningful lives if they can learn to identify, build upon, and deploy their current strengths and virtues on a regular basis. This emphasizes the need for using positive psychology as prevention and an intervention with children who have learning disabilities. The aim of positive psychology is to change the focus of psychology from a concern with rehabilitating the negative aspects of life to fostering positive qualities (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
Values in Actions (VIA) Inventory
The Values In Action (VIA) measurement tool was developed by Peterson and Seligman to classify and define character traits (strengths) and virtues. In international trials empirical findings showed that adults around the world endorsed the 24 character strengths. Please see Appendix A for a list of the 24 character strengths and their definitions. The research was conducted in 40 countries where individuals ranked the strengths. Correlations in rankings among nations were .80. There have been consistent results, in terms of validity and reliability, of the VIA-Youth tool, but it needs to be developed further with a larger sample to allow further analyses (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). More recently in 2003, a version of the inventory has been adapted for children (VIA-Youth) (Park & Peterson, 2003). Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi’s (2000) research
findings indicated that knowing your strengths and using them to your advantage will make your life more meaningful. My thesis research involves adapting their previous research for students with LD. Positive psychology research has not yet been adapted for students with LD. Identifying strengths may increase self-concept and may shift the focus from student’s disabilities to their abilities.
Rashid (2004) used a systematic intervention that assessed 24 strengths from the VIA including an experiential class in Positive Psychology. In his dissertation he
attempted to test the VIA classification and the idea that these strengths can be enhanced systematically and intentionally. Rashid presented the VIA strengths to university aged participants of the study using cognitive and behavioural techniques (e.g., readings, films, writing, class room discussions and group exercises). Rashid’s hypothesis was that
participants would then know, appreciate, and possibly improve their VIA strengths. The intervention attempted to guide participants towards positive thinking and behaviour so that they would be able to recognize their own strengths, build on them and use them more often. Rashid (2004) reported that the results so far indicate that optimism can be taught. Learned optimism may be helpful in improving and preventing some of the problems encountered in childhood.
Seligman, Steen, Park, and Peterson (2005) created the Steen Happiness Index (SHI) as a measure of happiness intervention. Interestingly, they used the Beck Depression Inventory as a model for the development of the tool. Seligman et al. then designed happiness exercises to be used in an online ‘happiness intervention’ study. There were 577 participants between the ages of 35 and 54. Their intervention was comprised of four main activities. For the first activity, “gratitude visit”, participants
were asked to write and deliver a letter of gratitude to someone who has been kind to them and who they feel they have not properly thanked. Participants were given one week to complete the exercise. The second activity, “three good things in life”, asked the participants to write down three good things, each day for a week, including a causal explanation for each good thing. The third activity entitled “You at your best” was designed so that participants write about a time that they were at their best. Participants were instructed to reflect on their personal strength that was reflected in their story every day for a week. The fourth activity, “using signature strengths in a new way”, had
participants complete the VIA inventory of strengths and to use one of their top strengths in a new way each day for a week. The results showed a significant effect. Participants were happier six months post-test when compared to their pre-test scores. This was found to be most highly related to the “three good things” and the “using signature strengths in a new way” activities. The present study will use these two activities (“three good things” and “using signature strengths in a new way”) as the basis of the intervention. The results of the Seligman, Steen, Park, and Peterson (2005) interventions are encouraging for future research into the application of positive psychology exercises with children who have learning disabilities.
For this study, I received special permission to use the VIA-Youth, from Drs. Peterson and Park, as they are currently conducting research to further validate the measure. The VIA Youth can be viewed online at www.viastrengths.org.
Positive Psychology and Children
Rashid (2004) reported that the Mayerson Foundation, an American foundation which provides grants for projects that create communities, has funded a three-year
project known as The Values in Action Classification to define and classify human strengths. This project has several strands, two of which are directly related to youth development and the effects of intervention:
a. “Coordination with youth development groups in the United States to
encourage the evaluation of programs using this classification system in order to determine how strengths and virtues are linked to such positive outcomes among young people;
b. The primary purpose of this exploratory study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a Positive Psychology intervention” (Rashid, 2004, p.46).
Presently the Positive Psychology Center at the University of Pennsylvania is piloting curriculum designed to build resilience, promote adaptive coping skills, and teach effective problem-solving (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Gillham et al., 2007). This longitudinal study began in 1994. The hypothesis behind the Penn Resiliency Project research is that the program will build resiliency in children so they will be less susceptible to depression and better able to deal with stress.
According to Peterson and Seligman (2004) the VIA classification recognizes that trait like strengths and virtues are stable and general, but they are also shaped by the individual’s environment and thus capable of change. Additional important questions to ask in order to further research the application with children are: (a) How are strengths and virtues developed; (b) Can virtues be taught/learned; (c) Who might be the most effective teacher; (d) What might be the most effective processes which might facilitate enhancement of strengths? Increasing the resiliency of children may increase their self-concept and improve their ability to cope with their difficulties.
Self-Concept
Self-concept refers to domain-specific self-perceptions, and self-esteem pertains to one’s overall sense of self-worth (Cosden, Brown & Elliot, 2002). For the purpose of this paper. I will adopt the Cosden, Brown and Elliot (2002) definition.
In terms of persistence, people with high self-concept have a self-enhancing orientation, and they seek to capitalize on their good traits and pursue successes. People with low self-concept have a self protective orientation, and they seek both to remedy their shortcomings and to avoid failure and other set backs (Baumeister, 1999). Individuals with low self-concept are generally less persistent when confronted with possible failure. These individuals are discouraged by failure. Is the low self-concept causing the lack of persistence or is the lack of persistence causing the low self-concept (Baumeister, 1998)? Initial failure may cause individuals with low self-concept to lower their expectations.
Positive views about self are an affective resource to aid with coping. Self-concept and self-esteem issues play a significant role in a variety of disorders, as indicated in the DSM-IV. There is a negative correlation between self-esteem and depression. Increases in self-esteem lead to decreases in anxiety (Pittman, 1998). In general risk factors increase the likelihood that a child experiences difficulties later in life. However, protective factors, including a positive self-concept, can alleviate the risks (Cosden, Brown & Elliot, 2003).
The Development of Self-Concept in Children
From a developmental perspective, in middle childhood (ages 8 – 11), children begin to be able to differentiate between their personal areas of strength and weakness
(Harter, 1999; Stone & Lemanek, 1999). Stone and Lemanek (1990) report that children are not able to provide accurate reports of their emotions until the age of 8 or 9. As children become more aware of their sense of self, self-reports become more meaningful. This raises the importance of using an age appropriate self-evaluation in research.
These trends in social cognitive functioning allow the child to increasingly differentiate the self as they move into adolescence (Harter, 1999). Increased
differentiation acts as a cognitive buffer, and it allows the adolescent to prevent negative evaluations in one area from affecting another area (Higgins, 1991). As children are developmentally able to differentiate they are also able to complete self-reports. Greca (1990) comments on the importance of obtaining child’s perceptions of themselves. Parent and teacher reports of internalizing problems have been found to have a low correlation with child reports, thus underlying the importance of obtaining self-reports from children (Achenbach, McConaughy & Howell, 1987).
Developmentally self-evaluations become less positive as children move into middle childhood. Harter (1999) reports a decline in self-evaluations in early
adolescence. Between 6th and 7th grade individuals show the greatest decline in scores, and then after 8th grade the scores gradually increase. The change in the school
environment (transition from elementary school to middle school/high school) is hypothesized to be a reason that this decline occurs. During this transition, children are more vulnerable to losses in self-concept. Assuming self-evaluations are more malleable during these times, these may be the age(s)/grade(s) where researchers should focus (Harter, 1999). For these reasons, and for the purpose of my research, I chose a target sample of 10-15 year olds.
Self-Concept Interventions
The impact an intervention has on an individual is related to the cognitive
developmental level at which the individual is operating (Harter, 1999). The way a child has been raised, as well as their general socialization, will affect their self-evaluations, indicating that environmental factors influence self-concept change (Harter, 1999). Greca (1990) notes that children’s perceptions influence their behavior and, therefore, mediate the effects of treatment. Harter (1999) confirmed the potential for self- concept scores to change.
Harter (1999) reports on two separate approaches to self-enhancement intervention. One approach is that intervention should focus on concept and self-esteem directly (e.g. giving students exercises to make them feel good about themselves). A second approach is that intervention efforts should focus on enhancing specific
academic skills, based on the belief that attitudes about the self are consequences of successful achievement (Caslyn & Kenny,1977; Hattie & Marsh, 1996).
Similarly, Harter (1999) reported that an intervention where cognitive and verbal reframing strategies are taught in an attempt to shift perceptions to emphasize desirable qualities (e.g. kindness, fairness, empathy, and intelligence) may be appropriate. This is the belief that the approval of one’s inner self which will lead to the acceptance of one’s outer self. It is directed at helping the individuals highlight the importance of areas in which they are skillful and discount those areas in which they are unsuccessful. This approach is very similar to the theory behind signature strengths and positive psychology proposed for the present research study.
Harter (1999) stated that a goal of intervention would be to introduce strategies that would guide older children and adolescents both to adopt realistic perceptions and to bring their self-evaluations in line with their abilities. Many of these strategies are
appropriate in middle childhood, as younger children do not have the cognitive skills to compare their aspirations to their actual capability (Harter, 1999).
Massimini and Della Fave (2000) discussed the implications for using positive psychology strategies with persons with disabilities, “At the psychological level, this [behavioural] flexibility enables the individual to pursue developmental goals despite biological constraints” (p.29). Increasing the resiliency of children with disabilities would increase their self-concept and improve their ability to cope with their difficulties.
More recently, Hay (2005) reported on a research study evaluating an intervention program he created, “Enhancing Self-Concept”, for elementary age students. The ten week intervention program based on Marsh’s (1988) eight domains of self-concept. For each domain, structured activities were created on the following topics: physical abilities, physical appearance, peer relations, parent relations, reading, mathematics, general school and general self. Each lesson was approximately 60 minutes long. The children’s self-concept scores were assessed pre-intervention and post-intervention with the SDQ-1 (Marsh, 1992). The results indicated that students made significant improvements (effect sizes between d=0.58-1.23) in: physical appearance, general school, total nonacademic and total self-concept as well as moderate improvements (effect sizes between d=0.27-0.52) in general self, peer relationships and reading self-concept. These results are encouraging for self-concept intervention research, however, Hay’s study did not include
a control group, and detailed information about the intervention activities were not provided.
Learning Disabilities Learning Disabilities and Self-Concept
The self is one of the most studied and most important aspects of social
psychology (Baumeister, 1998). The issue of self is also a frequently researched topic in educational psychology research, specifically regarding students with LD (Elbaum & Vaughn, 2003). According to Erikson, “during the first years of school, every child must resolve the conflicts between a positive self-image and feelings of inferiority. If children succeed in school, they will develop positive feelings about themselves and believe that they can succeed” (as cited in Ryan, 1994, ¶27). Brooks (2002) emphasized the
importance of a positive self-concept in all aspects of a child’s life. Self-concept can have an impact on learning, school performance, and relationships. Research has shown that a low self-concept is especially common in children with learning difficulties. “Given the failure situations that many children with learning and attention difficulties have
experienced, these youngsters are especially vulnerable to low self-esteem” (Brooks, 2002, p.1).
Vaughn and Elbaum (1999) state that difficulties in the academic and social aspects of school influence the already lowered self-concepts' and self-perceptions' of students with disabilities (as cited in Mather & Ofiesh, 2005). Brown (1986) stated that positive feelings about the self affect how one sees one’s attributes (as cited in Trautwein et al., 2006). Brooks (2002) comments,
…research indicates that children with high self-esteem believe their success is determined in great part by their own efforts and ability. In contrast, children with low self-esteem (many children with learning disabilities fall into this group) are more apt to believe their success is based on luck or chance or factors outside their control (p.3).
A critical factor for overcoming risk appears to be a feeling of control over one’s life, self-understanding, and acceptance. The difficulty is often not the disability but the capability to meet the challenges that one faces in living and triumphing over them (Mather & Ofiesh, 2005).
There has been an increased interest in educational psychology research for individuals with LD. “Academic success or failure is as deeply rooted in self-concept as it is in measured academic ability” (Musholt, 1974, p.46 as cited in Moss & Skelton, 1978). Research has found that, for students with LD, their perceptions of academic competence were highly correlated with their self-concept (Elbaum & Vaughn, 2003). For students with LD, how they feel about themselves academically can have a prevailing effect on how they feel about themselves globally, and this could have an effect on future goals.
Individuals with LD often feel as though they cannot perform or overcome obstacles. To alleviate fear of failure, Baumeister (1999) recommend goal setting. Research comparing the self-concept of students with LD to those without LD found a .71 - .81 of a standard deviation difference in self-concept scores (Elbaum & Vaughn, 2003).
Harter (1990) stated that, for students with LD, their global self-worth is more closely linked to their general intellectual ability. Harter (1990) reported that the LD population was better able to differentiate different domains of self-concept (e.g.
academic and physical abilities) than individuals without LD. Further, children with LD were able to differentiate their self-concept in different school subjects. Harter (1990) attributes this ability to parents and teachers effectively communicating to children with LD the differentiation between general intelligence and areas of difficulty.
Mather and Ofiesh (2005) stated that difficulties in the academic and social aspects of school influence the already lowered self-concepts and self-perceptions of students with disabilities. In their overview of research on self-concept and students with LD, Elbaum and Vaughn (2003) suggested that a teacher’s understanding/acceptance of students with LD may influence how the child with LD feels about themselves.
The Potential of Using Positive Psychology with Children who have Learning Disabilities
Brooks’ (2002) research shows that many children with LD not only demonstrate anxiety and lack of confidence, but also they feel doubtful that their situations will improve. In order to improve the lives of children with learning problems, Brooks suggests teachers help their students develop “islands of competence,” or areas of strength that must be identified, reinforced and then displayed by educators. This is in agreement with the strengths–based approach in the positive psychology movement where the emphasis should be on strengths and not on ‘fixing’ what is wrong with a child. Their strongest qualities should be identified and nurtured. Children should be
guided to find areas where they can best use their strengths (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).
Cowen (1991) suggested a “social strategy focused on the promotion and implementation of wellness-enhancement as early as possible in the developmental course is likely to be a more effective approach than are strategies designed to repair existing deficits and …disorders” (as cited in Cicchetti, Toth, & Rogosch, 2000, p.371 ). Elbaum and Vaughn (2001), in a meta-analysis, found that school based interventions categorized as counseling were the most effective in promoting self-concept for middle and high school students with LD. Elbaum and Vaughn (2003) defined a counselling intervention as one that “focused explicitly on enhancing students self-perceptions and in many cases base on therapeutic models” (p.102). Berndt and Burgy (1996) found that the central component in successful intervention programs to increase self-concept is forming cohesive groups of peers who learn about each other and begin to care about one another. Participants begin to feel more positively about their peer acceptance because they become part of a group and feel valued.
McGuire and McGuire (2006) researched the theory of cognitive positivity bias whereas an individual’s “stimulus evaluation is affected more by characteristics that the stimulus possesses than by ones it lacks” (p.1117). Positive instead of negative
information about a stimulus refers to characteristics the stimulus possesses
(affirmational information) versus those that it lacks (negational information) (McGuire & McGuire, 1996). Their research included three experiments with a sample of
introductory psychology students (groups of 28 -112 individuals). Individuals in
then they were given a final sheet that asked them to list all of the desirable/undesirable traits they possess/do not possess. These lists were then assessed based on the number of traits individuals generated for each category. The results indicated that self-esteem can be raised by directing an individual to think of their positive (favourable) characteristics. Low self-esteem appears to develop by thinking of undesirable (negative) characteristics that one possesses. In the case of a child with LD, their negative characteristics may be their disability. This can be easily transferred to one of the theories behind positive psychology where individuals are encouraged to identify and use their signature
strengths.“We propose developing interventions that can help children with LD identify and build on their strengths, especially their strengths in non-academic areas” (Cosden, Brown & Elliot, 2002, p.46).
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
Simonton and Baumeister (2005) stated that, despite the remarkable progress made in positive psychology's first decade, much remains to be learned and done.
“Unfortunately, psychologists still know relatively little about human thriving and how to encourage it not only because they have not given this questions the resources it deserves but, more important, because they have work blinders that have prevented them from even recognizing the value of the questions” (Sheldon & King, 2001, p.216). Rich (2003) further suggested that positive psychology must deal with the issue of appropriate
methods for inquiry, integrating and incorporating previous research from psychology and other relevant fields into the movement, and avoiding prescribing a “good life” based on the values or morals of a specific culture. There is a need for more quantitative and qualitative research.
As a follow up to their happiness intervention research, Seligman et al. (2005) stated that further research on the effectiveness of these intervention exercises could reveal limits on the generality of positive exercises. They are currently researching these questions, “in collaboration with disability counselors, whose primary task is to help individuals with disabilities achieve high-quality employment and a high quality of life” (p.420). Results of this further research could influence the use of positive intervention with children who have learning disabilities.
There have been consistent results, in terms of validity and reliability, of the VIA-Youth tool, but it needs to be developed further with a larger sample to allow further analyses (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). There is a limited amount of research available that has tested the application of positive psychology with children and/or specifically about the use of positive psychology interventions with children who have learning disabilities.
“In the second half of the 20th century, psychology was said to be learning how to bring people up from negative eight to zero but [this is] not as good at understanding how people rise from zero to positive eight” (Gable & Haidt, 2005, p.103). Positive
psychology continues to search for ways both to bridge that gap and to help people rise up above zero (average). In the time I have spent working with children who have learning disabilities, many of my students lacked self-esteem and appeared to focus on their disabilities instead of their abilities. Implementing a program based on positive psychology could change these children’s focus to the positive and they may experience more success. The introduction of a positive psychology intervention program would make all students more aware of their strengths. “If positive psychology can reliably
teach people how to become and remain happier, it will have made an immense
contribution to human life” (Simonton & Baumeister, 2005, p.102). The purpose of this quantitative study, therefore, is to examine the effectiveness of a positive psychology intervention on students’ self-concept. Specifically, this study examines whether a positive psychology intervention (including the VIA – Inventory of Strengths for Youth) will improve the self-concept of children, aged 10 – 12, with and without LD.
Summary of Chapter Two
The study of positive human traits may lend itself to providing suggestions for preventing mental, as well as physical illnesses. Psychologists are learning how to build the qualities that help individuals to flourish. The task of prevention in the future will be both to understand and to learn how to foster strengths and virtues in young people (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). “Positive psychology as an organized area of study is clearly in its infancy. Nevertheless, it is an infant that is growing fast” (Bacon, 2005, p.181).
Harter (1999) reported that an intervention where cognitive and verbal reframing strategies are taught in an attempt to shift perceptions to emphasize desirable qualities (e.g. kindness, fairness, empathy, and intelligence) may be appropriate. This approach is very similar to the theory behind signature strengths and positive psychology proposed for the present research study.
Harter (1999) stated that a goal of intervention would be to introduce strategies that would guide older children and adolescents both to adopt realistic perceptions and to bring their self-evaluations in line with their abilities. Research has found that, for
students with LD, their perceptions of academic competence were highly correlated to their self-concept (Elbaum & Vaughn, 2003).
This chapter explored research regarding positive psychology and self-concept. The benefits of an intervention to increase the self-concept of children with LD was discussed. Several factors thought to contribute to low self-concept were outlined. Limitations and implications for future research were reviewed. The next chapter will outline research methodology.
Chapter Three: Methodology Overview
This chapter describes the research design selected for this study. Sampling procedures and instrumentation are outlined in detail along with the procedures for the intervention used in the study. The chapter concludes with an overview of ethics. Research Design
A true experimental pre-test post-test comparison/control group design was used for this study. Campbell and Stanley (1963) state that this design controls for eight threats to internal validity: history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, statistical regression, selection bias, experimental mortality, and selection-maturation interaction. The study will employ random assignment as it is considered the best technique for confirming initial equality between different treatment groups (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996). The data analysis included descriptive statistics, t-tests and mean comparison for interaction. The Independent Variable. The independent variables for this study were the positive psychology intervention activities including the VIA-Inventory of Strengths – Youth Survey (Park & Peterson, 2003). The proposed study was to have two levels including the control group versus the intervention groups as well as the LD group versus the non learning disabled group. The resulting study has one level, the control group of students with LD versus the intervention group of students with LD.
The Dependent Variables. The dependent variables for this study were the self-concept scores as measured (pre-test and post-test) by the Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ-1; Marsh,1992).
Sample and Sampling Procedures
Purposive convenience sampling was used for this study (Creswell, 2005). Specific schools were targeted, based on location, willingness of the principal to
participate, ethical approval, and an LD population. The target sample was proposed to be 80 children (40 with LD). The initial sample (received consent forms) was 31 children (31 with LD). The target sample size was calculated with the G*POWER Power Analysis Program (Erdfelder, Faul & Buchner,1996). A sample size of N= 80, is according to a Power of .80, an effect size of 0.3, and alpha of 0.05. In the proposed study there was to be 40 students in the control group and 40 students in the intervention group. In the current study there were 15 students in the intervention group and 16 students in the control group. The proposed study included ~40 students with LD (n=20 experimental). The current study began with 31 students with LD. An equal representation of male and female students was sought. For the current study, initially there were 8 female and 22 male students.
Participants were recruited from a local school in Victoria, British Columbia. For the present study the participants were from a local private school for students with LD. The participants included both females and males, and children from different ethnic, racial, and social backgrounds. No one ethnic, racial, or social class was targeted. Students were in grades 4 and above, and were between 9 and 15 years old. In order to have a sufficient number of students, the researcher targeted more than one school for the sample size (according to power and effect size). Four schools were targeted in order to solicit sufficient participation. The researcher visited school principals and once
Once permission was received from the school district (board) the researcher visited classes, explained the research study and distributed consent letters. When consent letters were returned, students were randomly assigned to a group (experimental or control) in each school. The pre and post tests as well as the intervention were conducted at the school.
Instrumentation Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ-1)
The Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ; Marsh, 1992) is designed to measure academic, non-academic and global aspects of self-concept The SDQ-1 is intended for children in grades 4 and above. The scale consists of 76 items that participants respond to on a five point Likert scale (true, mostly true, sometimes true, sometimes false, mostly false, false)(see Appendix B). Total scores range from 66 to 330. Cronbach α values range from .80 to .92. Six-month subscale test-retest coefficients range from .27 to .74 (most scores are .50-.70) (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Harter (1999) recommends the SDQ-1 and reports that reliability is 0.80-0.90. There is negligible cross-loading on construct validity and the instrument provides multidimensional distinctions not found in other measures. Factor analytic studies have justified a multidimensional approach to the assessment of self-concept (Harter, 1999). The measure takes roughly 20 minutes to administer (Marsh, 1988). Scores are grouped into 8 domains; physical abilities, physical appearance, peer relations, parent relations, reading, mathematics, general school and general self. These 8 domains are then grouped into 2 scores: Total Nonacademic and Total Academic. A final score entitled Total Self is the combination of all scores (Total Nonacademic + Total Academic).
Ethics
Ethical approval was obtained from the Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of Victoria, from School District 61 and from School A. Meetings with the principals of each school were part of the process. A letter of explanation about the study was provided to the schools. All potential study participants were given a consent letter. Participant’s parents had the opportunity both to read the information letter and to inform the researcher if they were interested in their child participating in the study. Several parents contacted the researcher in order to gain more information. One parent contacted the Ethics office at UVic. In order to confirm that they wanted to participate, parents signed the consent form prior to the commencement of the intervention. Confidentiality of all participants and their contributions in this study was ensured and maintained. The data collected were identified by individual code numbers and stored in a locked filing cabinet.
Ethics Application to School Board 61(SD61)
I sent a letter to the school board outlining my study and asking for an application package. I received the package in October, 2006, and it included forms to be completed. The forms were signed by two school principals and returned to the board following UVic ethics application approval (January, 2007).
Mr. Jim Henderson was my ‘gatekeeper’ and helped with the contact of schools through the school board. I worked with Mr. Henderson, and he provided me with a list of target schools where he was familiar with the school composition and the principals. This, initially, facilitated the process. I met with the staff at three schools within the
school board and following ethical approval from the school board (March, 2007) distributed consent forms at one school.
Ethics Application to School A
School A is a private school for students with LD in Victoria, British Columbia. I met with the principal and wrote a letter to the board of directors requesting permission to conduct research at the school. I was given approval to conduct research by the board of directors in November, 2006. In order to complete research at the school I completed a Police Background Check.
Procedure and Data Collection
The procedure for the study was as follows:
1. Application was made to The University of Victoria for ethical approval for the study.
2. Following receipt of ethical approval from the University, permission was sought from School Districts # 61 and School A, in order to conduct research in the school setting. Permission was obtained from schools principals and teachers as part of this process.
3. Following receipt of permission to conduct research within School District #61 and School A, the researcher visited classes and presented an overview of the study to the students. Consent letters explaining the study and criteria for participation were sent home with children. The consent letter invited parents/guardians and their children to participate in the study. If interested in participating, parents/guardians were
asked to sign and return the letter to their child’s school (see Appendix C for Parent Consent Letter).
4. Once consent was obtained from parents/guardians, at the first meeting children were given a verbal explanation of the study and asked to give verbal consent prior to the commencement of the study. Ongoing consent was outlined during each session.
5. From the received consent forms participants were randomly divided into two groups (a) intervention and (b) control.
* A more detailed description of the intervention is provided following this section.
6. During the first session, the SDQ-1 was completed by all participants as a pre-test measure. The questions were read aloud.
7. All SDQ-1 assessments were scored by the researcher.
8. The intervention group participated in 3 class sessions of positive psychology activities including completing the VIA – Inventory of Strengths Survey for Youth (Park & Peterson, 2003).
9. The SDQ-1 was completed by all participants as a post-test measure. 10. The research was scored and the data analysis was completed by the
researcher. Overview of Intervention
For the intervention sessions groups met in classrooms at School A Thursday afternoons at 1:30pm for 5 weeks. Table 1 provides an overview of the research study sessions.
Table 1.
Overview of the Intervention Study
Group Intervention Sessions
Week 1
(pre-test) Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
Week 5 (post-test)
Intervention X X X X X
Control X X
Session 1: Both the intervention and the control group participated. At the principal’s request the participants were divided into two groups, in order to have enough space for the participants to complete the pre-test. I met and greeted participants and took
attendance. Consent forms were explained to the participants, and students were given the opportunity to give verbal consent. I explained an outline of the activities involved in the study. Students completed the self-concept pre-intervention inventory the SDQ-1 (Marsh, 1992). This took between 25 minutes - 35 minutes per class. I read the questions aloud.
Before leaving, participants were given a handout outlining which group they have been randomly assigned to and when their next session was.
Session 2: The intervention group met. I met and greeted participants and took
attendance. Ongoing consent was outlined for the participants. This session focused on an introduction to positive psychology and of the VIA-Youth. Participants were put into groups and discussed definitions for the 24 character strengths. Participants shared their group results with the class. Students were then instructed to complete the “three good things” activity, modeled after the research by Seligman et al. (2005), for homework. The session was approximately 45 minutes long.
Session 3: The intervention group met in smaller groups this week, in order to have access to computers. The school had 5 laptops. I met and greeted participants and took attendance. Ongoing consent was outlined for the participants. Participants completed the VIA-Youth Online. Myself and two assistants worked with students in order to read the questions to the participants that required assistance. The session lasted approximately one hour per group.
Session 4: The intervention group met in two groups at the request of the principal. I met and greeted participants and took attendance. Ongoing consent was outlined for the participants. We reviewed the VIA-Youth inventory results and discussed goal setting based on signature strengths. Students completed an activity based on their VIA results and the “using signature strengths in a new way” exercise, modeled after the research by Seligman et al. (2005). The lesson lasted approximately 45 minutes.
Session 5: Both the intervention group and the control group participated. The participants were divided into two groups, in order to have enough space for the
participants to complete the post-test. I met and greeted participants and took attendance. Ongoing consent was outlined for the participants. Participants completed the self-concept post-intervention inventory [SDQ (Marsh, 1992)]. I read the questions aloud. After the participants in both groups completed the SDQ-1, they completed a qualitative evaluation of the study. Then all of the students gathered in one room. I drew names for two gift certificates to a local bookstore. This session lasted approximately 40 minutes. Please see Appendix D for the script of the intervention as submitted for ethical approval with the University of Victoria.
Data Analysis
The proposed study was to include a two-way ANOVA (2 x 2 factorial design). The current study included t-tests. The main effect for the intervention (independent variable A) was tested. The “main effect for each independent variable means that there is a significant difference between the levels of this independent variable across levels of the other independent variable” (Psych Connections, no year). The data were combined to determine if there was a difference between pre and post test. The proposed data were to be analyzed separately by school and then with all schools combined. The current study included one school. Additionally male and female data were separated for analysis, as well as grade/class data.
Summary of Chapter Three
This chapter outlined the rationale for employing a pretest-posttest research design to investigate the effectiveness of a positive psychology intervention for improving self- concept of children with and without LD. Details of the research
methodology were described, including sampling of participants, procedures, and choice of instrumentation. An overview of the ethics procedures was included.
Chapter 4: Results Overview of Chapter Four
This chapter reviews the characteristics of the sample, the data gathering process and the statistical analyses conducted in this study. First, preliminary analyses are
described to demonstrate that the control and intervention groups were equivalent prior to intervention. Second, primary analyses are presented in relation to the hypothesis of the study. The chapter concludes with secondary analyses that explore the findings in more depth.
Preliminary Analyses What was the composition of the sample?
Before beginning the study in October of 2006, I approached several public schools in the local school district. I contacted five school principals, and two agreed to have their school participate in the study. I met several times with each principal. In January of 2007 I received ethics approval from the University of Victoria and subsequently applied for permission to conduct research within the school district. In January of 2007, I received feedback from the school district regarding concerns with questions in the VIA Questionnaire. After numerous contacts with the school board and the principals of the two schools, one school principal withdrew. The second school principal agreed to participate. Final permission was obtained from the school district in March of 2007. I visited a school on two occasions both to distribute consent letters and to explain the study to students and school staff. On the occasion of the first visit ~75 consent letters were distributed. One week later, one consent form was returned. The researcher was encouraged by the principal to come to the school again, re-explain the
research and distribute consent forms to students who expressed interest. On the second visit the researcher distributed ~10 consent forms. One week later, one consent form was returned. Due both to the low return rate of consent forms and to the six months of discussion with the school staff and school board personnel, it was decided that the possibility of research within the school (and school board) would not be pursued any further.
In November, 2006 I approached a local private school for students with LD. The school will be identified as School A. I met with the principal and wrote a letter
explaining my study to the Board of Directors. The research study was approved by the Board of Directors in January, 2007, and research at School A began at the end of January. Forty-two parent consent forms were distributed, and 31 were returned (74% return rate). The returned consent forms were comprised of 70% boys (n=22) and 30% girls (n=9).
School A has 4 classrooms, organized by grade. The classes are as follows, Grade 4/5, Grade 6/7, Grade 8, and Grade 9. From the returned consent forms, 8 participants were in Grade 4/5, Grade 6/7 (n=6), Grade 8 (n=8), and grade 9 (n=9). The mean grade level was M=7.10. The ages of the participants were; age 9 (n=3), 10 (n=6), 11 (n=1), 12 (n=4), 13 (n=6), 14 (n=7), and 15 (n=4). The mean age was M=12.29. All participants were from the same school (School A), which identifies itself as a school for students with LD.
Thirty participants began the study (one student was ill for the first session). At the first meeting one student did not want to participate after completing part of the pre-test, and the researcher contacted the parents. The parents spoke with the child, and felt
